|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2007 at 10:57:07
>> "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat
or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room?" Well, that would be the elimination of static charge! As on a cable, say, where the electron (or signal) flow can/could be molested by residual charge in the insulation. Or as on a CD, where a moving (whirling) static charge can erect a magnetic field (a la Maxwell) and hammer (a la the Beatles) the coils that
drive the laser, sending them into mild conniptions unanticipated by audio designers and the Redbook people." <<<
When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor.
My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound - i.e could affect the information on the (playing) CD or affect the signal travelling along the (working) cable. Your answer (re the cable) was about (signal) flow being molested by residual charge in the insulation. Surely that answer is to do with the 'working' cable - the cable carrying the signal NOT to do with the passive cable I am talking about - i.e the cable strewn passively on the floor - not carrying any signal !!
The question I asked was for you to give me your explanation as to how eliminating the static charge on a PASSIVE CD - on the table next to you - or eliminating the static charge on the outer insulation of the cable strewn passively on the floor could affect the sound of the playing CD or affect the signal travelling along the working cable or - the other alternative - affect the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.
It is when you can 'do something' such as applying a chemical to the label side of a PASSIVE CD or apply a chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable and gain an improvement in the sound that you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. THEN you will begin to question such explanations as "eliminating the static charge". That is all I have been doing - challenging such explanations !!
In exactly the same way that the explanation that the spread of cholera was caused by the Foul air had, eventually, to be challenged when one doctor removed the handle of a communal water pump and halted the spread of cholera in that particular district - even though everyone on that district STILL breathed in the same Foul air !! With further knowledge and further experience the original explanation was no longer valid !! The Foul air was still the same as it always had been, the cholera was still the same as it always had been - only the explanation had changed !!
I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism.
You say you look at things with the eyes of an 'ex optical systems engineer' so I would presume that you would explain the effect of marking the edge of a CD with a green pen as 'somehow dealing with the way the laser beam reads the digital information on the CD - i.e refraction or reflection of the laser beam'. But, when you can mark the outer edge of a vinyl record and gain a similar and identical improvement in the sound from the vinyl record then any explanation to do with 'reflection or refraction of the laser beam' is no longer valid and has to be challenged !! Ditto audio or video cassette.
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
"When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor." Indeed. And I moved erratically from that, to non-passive. Sorry!
"My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound." OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?
But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
"I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism." Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way.
clark
> > > "My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound."
OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?" < < <
Because it alters the energy pattern (for want of a better word) which you are reacting adversely to within your environment. To enlarge on this. If destating or demagnetising something passive IMPROVES the sound, then prior to destating or demangnetising the effect MUST HAVE been adverse !! On you.
In other words, it is not the audio information which is being affected - it is the way YOU are interpreting what is going on in the environment. You are already being affected (reacting to the environment) before any destating or demagnetising is done and then being affected DIFFERENTLY after destating or demagnetising is carried out. If the sound after is perceived as better, then the effect of destating or demagnetising must have been beneficial !! To you.
> > > "But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
"I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism."
Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way." < < <
************
I have no problem with you being "kinda tricky about Beltism". I would say that that is many people's reaction. Intelligently sceptical but interested.
Let us look at your question re the Cream, the jar, the CD or cable and the room.
The room is the room - meaning that if the room was completely empty then the adverse conditions would be lower than in a normal everyday modern room Fill the room with all the things belonging to the modern world and the room becomes more hostile (for want of a better word) and because of all these things you (the human being) - programmed by evolution to be constantly reading/sensing your environment in order to 'sign it off as safe' - are no longer able to do exactly that - sign it off as 'safe'. So, you stay under tension - which then affects the way you interpret the sound information.
This is the discovery we made over 25 years ago. We had, over many years, accumulated numerous experiences of the sound altering where we could not explain those changes. If you like, look on it as having numerous random pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which do not fit together to make a recognisable picture. Then, gradually, other experiences (other pieces of jigsaw) present themselves until finally they all fit together to make a coherent picture. But, it is not a coherent picture which the world of audio is familiar with.
Some of the random pieces of the jigsaw were different chemicals changing the sound, different colours changing the sound, different shapes changing the sound, etc. What made it all begin to come together was discovering that one chemical we had casually used on a coffee table and which had ruined our sound was being described in an article about plants as a 'stress' chemical produced when a certain plant was under 'stress'. The picture that emerged from the random pieces of the jigsaw coming together was that it was us (human beings) who had been (subconsciously) reacting to that 'stress' chemical and gone under tension ourselves - which in turn had affected the way we were interpreting the sound information we had been listening to. From that discovery we searched and searched for what might be the opposite - a 'reassuring' chemical. Hence the Cream.
We then began to discover some of the 'tricks' (techniques) Nature uses and were then able to incorporate them gradually into our devices.
> > > "Wouldn't the presence of the Cream, just in the room, be sufficient ?" < < <
I wish !! You are asking a lot of a jar of Cream !! Although your reasoning is correct. If the Cream is providing a 'reassuring' energy pattern, allowing us to gradually begin to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe', then the presence of the Cream, in the room, could/might have a beneficial effect - in fact - some people can actually 'feel' the atmosphere begin to 'ease' before they even start to 'treat' anything.
Say, hypothetically, there are 1,000 things in the modern environment which are a problem (causing tension) for us, human beings - i.e not allowing us to relax, not allowing us to 'sign off the environment as safe'. You are asking a lot for the Cream, by just simply being in the room, to provide enough reassurance for us (human beings) to ignore all the 1,000 adverse things. But, having said that, begin to 'treat' with the Cream, the CDs, the equipment, the cabling, the different plastic materials (different mixtures of chemicals) the this, the that and gradually the tension eases, you begin to be more reassured, you begin to interpret much better the musical information which is there, in the room and which has been there all the time.
Let me take it out of audio for a moment and describe it by using a different example. Say a cat has peed in many different areas in a room, over quite a long time. There will be a dreadful, obnoxious 'cat' smell in the room. You ask me "Can the small air freshener you sell 'deal' with that problem.?" I would have to answer that you are asking a lot from a small air freshener to 'deal with' such a large problem - although someone MAY be able to detect a beneficial effect from just one squirt. I would have to recommend that the freshener spray is used in a few of the individual areas where the cat has peed in order to make a recognisable beneficial effect. I know that 'a cat peeing' is not a term used in the audio world but I see the problem in the modern environment (which we are reacting to) as just as adverse.
I also know that the example of the 'cat pee' is not brilliant (but it is the best one I can think of at the moment) because others in the room would be able to detect the adverse effect (the obnoxious smell) as well as you could AND, they would be able to detect when that adverse effect was being 'treated'. Where it IS a good example is that it can give one an idea of how there can be adverse conditions which will not allow you to 'sign off the environment as OK' until those adverse conditions in the environment have been 'treated'.
If you still stay with the hypothetical concept of there being (say) 1,000 adverse things in the environment that does not mean that anyone just 'treating' one thing would definitely hear an improvement in the sound. Someone 'treats' (say) 8 things, they may still not hear any improvement in the sound but, after treating two more things they suddenly say "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Yet a different person may have heard an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only 3 things !!! Again, someone may describe hearing an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only one thing - the CD which is playing. Someone else, trying exactly the same thing may hear no improvement but as soon as they then 'treat' (say) the AC power cord of the electric fire suddenly says "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Human beings are so diverse and their life experiences are so different and their reactions to different conditions are so different that it is difficult to guarantee what and where and when people will be able to hear improvements in the sound. They have to experiment for themselves.
The whole story is well known and has been repeated often - at least it is well known by people who are seriously interested !!
Regards,
May Belt.
I've been gone for a few days or I might have said more, and earlier.
clark
Good question!
How have people who have heard the effect of the tweak been reporting the effect of brining the whole jar into the room/house?
This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream.
That was an excellent point, Mr. Johnsen.
Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system?
Again, well done, Mr. Johnsen.
__
Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system?
> > This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream. < <
Actually, the question of the effect of the presence of PWB products in a room has been raised by otheres and addressed. I would know, I've responded to them numerous times. Maybe not right here, not right now, though.
> > Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system? < <
....But then, I'm not even sure if we're talking about the cream electret here (I assume that's what you refer to by "jar") or some unnamed hand lotion. Yes, certainly I have tested the effects of moving PWB products around the house, and in proximity of the system, and I'm sure that includes the jar of cream electret. AFAIK, all PWB products have an effect by their very presence in the house, particularly in close proximity to an audio system. Some more than others. In fact, I have tested the effects of the presence of these products in recordings that I make. "An effect" however, is not necessarily "the effect". What both of you should understand is the effect had by Beltist products is a combination of (at least) two factors: the product, and the object it's to be applied to. The "magic" starts when you apply the product to an object that has had no such previous application (and yes, it can continue if you apply it in stages over various areas of the product).
Usually, less is more, and this cream is effective at 1 micron thickness. What if you dump a pound of it on top of your cd player? You should not expect better results, but worse results, than if used effectively. It may not make much sense when you are looking at the problem with a conventionalist POV, but that's simply how the phenomenon works (and what it responds to). It doesn't care what you think makes sense to you. Look at what's happening when a jar of CE is in the room. A (relatively) large quantity, inside a jar (I dont think it matters much whether the top is off or on). The glass jar is sitting on an object (say, your desk). The creme is in contact with the jar. It's having a (relatively mild) effect on the jar (due to the quantity), the jar is (presumably) having an effect on the desk. This is all pretty diluted, as far as effects are concerned. In audio, you want to maximize effects. So the cream must be taken out of the jar and applied directly to an object, to create the real effect it was intended to create. And the effect is further maximized, depending on the quantity, the object you treat, and the location on the object.
> > Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system? < <
It doesn't NOT affect the sound of the system. So long as it's in your house, your system is affected in some manner.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
I'm working on auditioning some OTC creams this week and will report.
Cheers.
Let us have a look at the explanation to do with 'static'.
If you want to say that "Of course, getting an improvement in the sound by applying such as a hand cream to the label side of a CD is because the hand cream (the chemical) is 'dealing with' static build up on the disc." - then you have to describe just what had been happening to the digital information encoded on the disc BEFORE applying the hand cream (chemical). You have to try to explain just why you had not been able to 'hear' this additional information (giving the improved sound) prior to applying the hand cream (chemical).
Was the build up of static on the CD not allowing the laser beam to read all the digital information correctly ? If the laser beam WAS actually reading the digital information perfectly correctly then where else in the CD player was this information (which had already been read correctly by the laser beam) being adversely affected by the static build up on the CD ? Then, when you feel you have successfully explained that, this same explanation has to also be relevant for applying the same chemical to a PASSIVE CD - not playing and not in the CD machine and getting a similar improvement in the sound !!
Before I go any further let me explain what I mean by 'having improved sound' due to being able to hear additional information. I mean the working memory receiving additional information which allows it to create a better 'sound picture' to present to the brain. The better 'sound picture' being greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of instruments, better resolution etc.
Back to the subject of the Nordost chemical which is also claimed to be dealing with the build up of static. All the same questions asked above regarding CDs apply to the claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of CDs gives an improvement in the sound because the Nordost chemical is claimed to be 'dealing with the problem of static'.
Similar questions have to be asked regarding the claim by Nordost that applying their chemical to the LABELS of vinyl records gives an improvement in the sound (because the chemical is 'dealing with the problem of static build up'). Prior to applying the Nordost chemical what was preventing this additional information being read/picked up by the stylus ? If the stylus WAS reading/picking up this additional information from the vinyl record perfectly adequately, then where else on the turntable/cartridge/pick up arm was this additional information being adversely affected by this problem of 'static'?
Now to the question of applying the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables. Nordost claim that by applying their chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables, one can gain improved sound because there is a build up of static on the outside of a cable which is adversely affecting the audio signal travelling along the cable and their chemical 'deals with' this problem of build up of static. One has to ask the question "How, exactly, is this static on the outer insulation of cables having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling along the audio cable ?" When you think you might have adequately explained that, then this same explanation has to explain how applying the same chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable gives a similar improvement in the sound !!
All the claims so far have been about information stored on CDs or vinyl records and about the audio signal travelling along cables being adversely affected by 'static'. But, now we come to an even stranger claim. Nordost claim that applying their chemical to the outer insulation of AC power cables ALSO gives an improvement in the sound. That their chemical 'deals with' the static build up on AC power cables. One has to ask the question "How is a build up of static on an AC power cable having an adverse effect on either the information stored on a CD or vinyl record or travelling along an audio cable - when there is NO audio signal travelling along an AC power cord. Just what is being affected inside the AC power cord by a build up of static on it's outer insulation - which then, in turn, affects the 'sound' ?"
Even stranger. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric clock on the shelf or to a PASSIVE AC power cord just dangling from the table lamp (the AC power cord on the table lamp NOT connected into the AC supply socket) you will get a similar improvement in the sound as you got from 'treating' the cables belonging to the working audio system !!!!! Explain THAT !! Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cable of the table lamp can be affecting the 'sound'.
Even stranger still. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric food mixer, stored in the kitchen, you will experience a similar further improvement in the sound in the listening room. Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cord of the food mixer in the kitchen can be affecting the 'sound'.
I repeat. I am NOT challenging Nordost's (or other people's) observations that they have heard improvement in the sound by doing the treatments described. I am challenging the explanation that "it is to do with static". If this leaves many people with observations but without adequate (conventional) explanations then so be it - it will not be the first time in the history of science that this has happened !!
To be continued.
Regards,
May Belt.
build up on the insulation of a cable will manifest itself as capacitance. Supposedly that is one reason why most IC's have a certain amount of C which never really seems to be eliminated. Some cable manufacturers are using a conductive sheath in order to 'ground' this build up and lower the capacitance of their cables.
You could claim, instead, a reduction in EMI effect is observed and many explanations then fall into place, however small they may be.
Stu
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: